792 



VIRGINIA. 



parts of the United States sent addresses and 

 resolutions recognizing the event. On June 23 

 the Queen's Jubilee was celebrated at St. Paul's 

 Cathedral, London, by religious ceremonies of 

 thanksgiving. On the 25th there was held a 

 state banquet at Windsor Castle, and on the 

 27th the Queen received there numerous dep- 

 utations bearing congratulatory addresses. On 

 the 28th a Jubilee ball took place at the Man- 

 sion House, at which were present four kings, 

 members of the royal family, and many foreign 

 princes. On the 29th the Queen gave a grand 

 garden-party at Buckingham Palace, and there 

 reviewed, on July 2, 28,000 volunteers. On 

 July 4 the Queen laid the first stone of the 

 Imperial Institute at South Kensington. On 

 the 6th, by royal command, a state ball was 

 given at Buckingham Palace. The ceremonies 

 and functions of the Jubilee were closed by a 

 review at Aldershot, by the Queen, on July 9, 

 of 60,000 regulars, militia, and volunteers. On 

 November 4 the Queen caused to be made 

 public the proclamation of her thanks for the 

 loyal demonstrations of her subjects. 



VIRGINIA. State Government. The following 

 were the State officers during the year : Gov- 

 ernor, Fitzhugh Lee, Democrat; Lieutenant- 

 Governor, John E. Massey ; Secretary of State, 

 H. W. Flonrnoy ; Treasurer, A. G. Harmon ; 

 Auditor, Morton Marye ; Second Auditor, 

 Frank G. Ruffin ; Attorney- General, Rufus A. 

 Ayers ; Superintendent of Public Instruction, 

 James L. Buchanan ; Railroad Commissioner, 

 H. G. Moffett; President of the Supreme 

 Court, Lunsford L. Lewis; Judges, T. T. 

 Fauntleroy, Robert A. Richardson, Benjamin 

 T. Lacy, and Drury A. Hinton. 



The Legislature and the Debt. On March 16 

 the Governor convened the Legislature in ex- 

 tra session. His reasons therefor, as expressed 

 in his message, were as follow : 



1. To call your attention to the present condition of 

 the debt of the Commonwealth and to tne recent de- 

 cision of the Supreme Court of the United States in 

 reference to the Jaw imposing tax upon sample mer- 

 chants. 



2. To ask that you receive and, if proper, adopt the 

 work of the revisers of the code. 



3. To request that you make proper provision for 

 the insane confined in jails because of insufficient ac- 

 commodations at the regular asylums. 



With reference to the debt, the Governor 

 made two suggestions, one for the appointment 

 of a committee to confer with the foreign 

 bond-holders regarding a settlement, the other 

 detailing an amendment to the law regulating 

 the reception of past-due coupons in payment 

 of taxes. In accordance with the first sugges- 

 tion, a joint committee of ten members was 

 chosen on March 29, and directed to confer 

 with a committee of the bond-holders at a date 

 not later than April 20. The Legislature then 

 adjourned from the 6th to the 28th of April, to 

 await the result of the conference. Two repre- 

 sentatives of the bond-holders appeared, and 

 sessions were held for several weeks, but with- 

 out reaching an agreement. The final proposal 



of the English representatives, requiring the 

 State to assume a debt of $24,909,919, and the 

 payment of $922,508 in annual interest, was 

 far beyond what the State was willing to con- 

 cede. 



The second suggestion of the Governor was 

 made in view of the recent decisions of the 

 United States Supreme Court, regarding the 

 validity of the act of Jan. 14, 1882, which re- 

 quired that all debt coupons tendered in pay- 

 ment of taxes should be proved to be genuine 

 before being received. The requirements of 

 the act were decided by the Supreme Court to 

 be reasonable in the case of Antoni vs. Green- 

 how; but in Poindexter vs. Greenhow it was 

 held that the tender of genuine coupons was 

 payment, and that the collecting officer, if he 

 subsequently levies, is a trespasser and liable 

 for damages. In view of these decisions, the 

 collecting officers were unwilling to subject 

 themselves to the danger of a suit by levying 

 upon the property of those who had tendered 

 tbeir coupons, but who refused to surrender 

 them for identification or to prove them, and 

 the Attorney-General finally declined to advise 

 collecting officers to execute the law. As no 

 penalty was imposed for its non-enforcement, 

 it had therefore become almost a dead letter 

 at the beginning of the year. Meanwhile, the 

 act of 1882 being found inapplicable to taxes 

 payable for licenses, an act had been passed in 

 March, 1886, practically extending its provis- 

 ions to those cases. The constitutionality of 

 this law was brought before the State Supreme 

 Court in January, 1887, and affirmed in the 

 case of the Commonwealth vs. Jones. Soon 

 afterward the same question was brought be- 

 fore Judge Bond of the Federal Circuit Court 

 in another case, and an opposite decision was 

 reached on February 2, when the judge released 

 on habeas corpus the violators of the law. An 

 appeal was taken to the Supreme Court from 

 this decision. Under both of these acts, the 

 tax-payer was first required to pay in money, 

 surrender his coupons, and then file a petition 

 to prove them in the local court. If he was 

 successful, his money was refunded by the 

 State. Upon refusal to make this proof after 

 tender, the collecting officer was authorized to 

 collect the taxes as if no tender had been made. 

 The suggestion offered by the Governor and 

 adopted by the Legislature was that, after a ten- 

 der, the State, instead of the individual, should 

 take the initiative by instituting a suit against 

 the tax-payer and giving him a day in court to 

 prove his coupons according to law. This 

 lifted the burden of the law from the collectors, 

 and placed it upon the State where it belonged. 

 No sooner had it been passed, however, than 

 theforeigubond-holders, through their attorney, 

 applied to Judge Bond for an injunction restrain- 

 ing the State officers from obeying the law. 

 After a hearing, a perpetual injunction was 

 granted, on the ground that, like its predeces- 

 sors, the act violated the obligation of the con- 

 tract by which the State agreed to receive 



